22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Exploring physicians’ decision-making in hospital readmission processes - a comparative case study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Hospital readmissions is an increasingly serious international problem, associated with higher risks of adverse events, especially in elderly patients. There can be many causes and influential factors leading to hospital readmissions, but they are often closely related, making hospital readmissions an overall complex area. In addition, a comprehensive coordination reform was introduced into the Norwegian healthcare system in 2012. The reform changed the premises for readmissions with economic incentives enhancing early transfer from secondary to primary care, making research on readmissions in the municipalities more urgent than ever. General practitioners (GPs) and nursing home physicians, have traditionally held a gatekeepers function in hospital readmissions from the municipal healthcare service, as they are the main decision-makers in questions of hospital readmissions. Still, the GPs’ gatekeeper function is an under-investigated area in hospital readmission research. The aim of the study was to increase knowledge about factors that lead to hospital readmissions among elderly in municipal healthcare, with special attention to GPs’ and nursing home physicians’ decision making.

          Method

          The study was conducted as a comparative case study. Two municipalities affiliated with the same hospital, but with different readmission rates were recruited. Twenty GPs and nursing home physicians from each municipality were recruited and interviewed. Forty hours of observation were conducted during the huddles in one long-term and one short-term nursing home in each municipality.

          Results

          Seven themes describing how different factors influence physicians’ decision-making in the hospital readmission process in two municipalities were identified. Poor communication, continuity and information flow account for hospital readmissions in both municipalities. Several factors, including nurse staffing and competence, patients and their families, time constraints and experience affected physicians’ decision-making.

          Conclusion

          Communication, continuity and information flow contributed to hospital readmissions in both municipalities. The cross-case analysis revealed slight differences between municipalities. More research focusing on GPs’ and nursing home physicians’ decision-making, nursing home nurses and home care nurses’ experience of hospital readmissions and discharges is needed.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3538-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Nearly 25% of patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) are readmitted within 30 days.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Causes and patterns of readmissions in patients with common comorbidities: retrospective cohort study

            Objective To evaluate the primary diagnoses and patterns of 30 day readmissions and potentially avoidable readmissions in medical patients with each of the most common comorbidities. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Academic tertiary medical centre in Boston, 2009-10. Participants 10 731 consecutive adult discharges from a medical department. Main outcome measures Primary readmission diagnoses of readmissions within 30 days of discharge and potentially avoidable 30 day readmissions to the index hospital or two other hospitals in its network. Results Among 10 731 discharges, 2398 (22.3%) were followed by a 30 day readmission, of which 858 (8.0%) were identified as potentially avoidable. Overall, infection, neoplasm, heart failure, gastrointestinal disorder, and liver disorder were the most frequent primary diagnoses of potentially avoidable readmissions. Almost all of the top five diagnoses of potentially avoidable readmissions for each comorbidity were possible direct or indirect complications of that comorbidity. In patients with a comorbidity of heart failure, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, or chronic kidney disease, the most common diagnosis of potentially avoidable readmission was acute heart failure. Patients with neoplasm, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease had a higher risk of potentially avoidable readmissions than did those without those comorbidities. Conclusions The five most common primary diagnoses of potentially avoidable readmissions were usually possible complications of an underlying comorbidity. Post-discharge care should focus attention not just on the primary index admission diagnosis but also on the comorbidities patients have.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How dangerous is a day in hospital? A model of adverse events and length of stay for medical inpatients.

              Despite extensive research into adverse events, there is no quantitative estimate for the risk of experiencing adverse events per day spent in hospital. This is important information for hospital managers, because they may consider discharging patients earlier to alternative care providers if this is associated with lower risk, but other costs and benefits are similar. We model adverse events as a function of patient risk factors, hospital fixed effects, and length of stay. Potential endogeneity of length of stay is addressed with instrumental variable methods, using days and months of discharge as instruments. We use administrative hospital episode data for 206,489 medical inpatients in all public hospitals in the state of Victoria, Australia, for the year 2005/2006. A hospital stay carries a 5.5% risk of an adverse drug reaction, 17.6% risk of infection, and 3.1% risk of ulcer for an average episode, and each additional night in hospital increases the risk by 0.5% for adverse drug reactions, 1.6% for infections, and 0.5% for ulcers. Length of stay is endogenous in models of adverse events, and risks would be underestimated if length of stay was treated as exogenous. The results of our research contribute to assessing the benefits and costs of hospital stays-and their alternatives-in a quantitative manner. Instead of discharging patients early to alternative care, it would be more desirable to address underlying causes of adverse events. However, this may prove costly, difficult, or impossible, at least in the short run. In such situations, our research supports hospital managers in making informed treatment and discharge decisions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Malinknutsen.glette@hvl.no
                Tone.kringeland@hvl.no
                olav.roise@medisin.uio.no
                Siri.wiig@uis.no
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                19 September 2018
                19 September 2018
                2018
                : 18
                : 725
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.477239.c, Faculty of Health, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, ; Haugesund, Norway
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0389 8485, GRID grid.55325.34, Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, ; Oslo, Norway
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2299 9255, GRID grid.18883.3a, Faculty of Health Sciences, SHARE – Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, , University of Stavanger, ; Stavanger, Norway
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8921, GRID grid.5510.1, Institute of Clinical Medicine, , University of Oslo, ; Oslo, Norway
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3822-0581
                Article
                3538
                10.1186/s12913-018-3538-3
                6146774
                30231903
                9c4b0118-e7e5-4a06-ab70-cbf721fc19bc
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 22 January 2018
                : 12 September 2018
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Health & Social care
                hospital readmissions,patient safety,hospital discharge,patient handovers,decision-making

                Comments

                Comment on this article